Resolved: Women Do Not Crave Jihadi Cock

Introduction
I’m frequently critical of mainstream and/or feminist thinking, but sometimes the manosphere goes off the rails too. And in this post, I aim to refute a theory which some manospherians (in particular those who identify as “Red Pillers”) like to push.

This theory attempts to explain why SJWs refuse to discuss the issues of fundamentalist Islam and the integration of Muslim communities into Western societies. Fundamentalist Muslims are at least as, and arguably more, opposed to liberal Enlightenment values than fundamentalist Christians, yet SJWs support the former and scorn the latter. The Islamic world treats sexual minorities and women far more savagely than the West, yet SJWs (who posture as defenders of sexual minorities and women) refuse to criticize it or confront the possibility that unlimited immigration from fundamentalist Islamic societies may import not just the people but the attitudes of those societies.

So why would SJWs want to bring in homophobic, fundamentalist sexists?

Well according to some, its because feminists deep down crave to be dominated by men, and because Western men aren’t holding them down and pounding them, they’re importing men who’ll do the job. This theory should be ridiculous on its face, yet even Jordan Peterson (who, despite my disagreements with him on many issues, can hardly be described as an intellectual lightweight) has entertained the idea that women’s “subconscious desire for brutal male domination” drives the feminist/SJW defense of Islam.

In other words, feminists/SJWs love Islamists because Women Crave Jihadi Cock (henceforth WCJC). And in this article I shall argue that not only does this theory have only very limited explanatory power at best, but even from the perspective of most Red Piller beliefs it makes no sense for a woman to want a Jihadi takeover of society in order to satisfy the “feminine imperative.”

“SJWs” =/= “Women”
The first problem with the WCJC theory is that it doesn’t seem to explain why male SJWs are equally unwilling to criticize Islam (see Ben Affleck’s atrocious performance when confronted by Sam Harris on Bill Maher’s show). Presumably Ben Affleck is not a woman, and therefore does not crave Jihadi cock, so why would he be so opposed to criticism of Islam?

Another problem with WCJC is that it doesn’t explain non-SJW or anti-SJW women. We in the West are privileged to live in a world where, frankly, women cannot be described as living under conditions of brutal male domination. If WCJC, why don’t essentially all women engage in pro-Islamist or pro-Islamic-Immigration activism? Why do we have, at the forefront of Islam-criticism, women like Pamela Geller (whom I dislike, but serves an example nonetheless) and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a true heroine of Enlightenment values)? Does Niall Ferguson (Ms. Ali’s husband) fulfill Ayaan’s subconscious craving for brutal male domination or something along those lines? Because there are plenty of women in western society, living free and happy lives, who clearly are not deeply craving brutal male domination. Even Fifty Shades of Grey, who’s success is frequently brought up as evidence that women all secretly want to be dominated, is actually a story of a woman gaining power over a dangerous and powerful “bad boy” and not a story of him controlling her. If WCJC were true, we’d see many more women allying with SJWs and pro-Islamist activists than we currently see.

Another problem with WCJC is that if women were truly acting out of a desire for brutal male domination, why aren’t these women converting to Islam and marrying Muslim men? In short, why aren’t they actually doing what their urges are allegedly driving them to do? Why aren’t they husbanding up their own personal Chaddam to oppress and dominate them, if that’s what they truly crave?

Jihadi Cock And The “Feminine Imperative”
But there is a more compelling argument against WCJC, one which emerges from certain other “Red Pill” ideas. For this part of the essay I will begin by making two critical assumptions. Firstly, women are guided by the “feminine imperative” or the desire to mate with men of the highest genetic quality (fitness within the evolutionary environment) they can find (this is also known as “hypergamy”). Secondly, women are economically rational; they assess various costs and benefits, and make the choices which maximize the value of benefits-subtract-costs. These two assumptions lead to a relatively uncontroversial idea for Red Pill types: women are rational hypergamy maximizers.

But would an influx of Jihadis, in any way, lead to a situation where women can maximize hypergamy?

In essence we’re dealing with an economic question here, and in particular a question suited to Institutional Economics and Comparative Institutional Analysis: which “institutional design” for the “sexual marketplace” is the one which, from the perspective of women, is most efficient? Which institutional design for the sexual marketplace allows women to most easily get the highest-genetic-quality man they can find, as well as the largest post-insemination investments of resources into herself and her children? And what kind of institutional design, precisely, does fundamentalist Islam prescribe for the sexual marketplace? Does that design serve the feminine imperative?

Because the reality is that if you want to picture a society where the sexual marketplace is an efficient system for optimizing hypergamy, it is modern liberal Western post-sexual-revolution society which is best for that, particularly in the internet era. In our modern world, women can screen for whatever traits they wish via dating apps. Any social stigmas surrounding their sexual explorations are considered misogynist. They experience complete and utter sexual and reproductive liberation (with the exception of mid-term abortion in certain jurisdictions).

If women are hypergamous and therefore prone to “trading up” for higher-genetic-quality men, whilst at the same time wanting to make it as hard as possible for a man to leave them unilaterally, it stands to reason that women will want their exit costs for relationships to be as low as possible, whilst wanting men’s exit costs to be as high as possible. We live in a world where no-fault divorce exists and men tend to lose the most assets in the event thereof. We live in a world where a woman can spermjack a man and face essentially no negative consequences. QED.

Not to mention, we no longer live in a strictly monogamous society. Rather, we live in a society where the norm is serial monogamy; the idea is that one goes from partner to partner in an attempt to find “your soul mate/the one,” and when you find that person you suddenly experience “true love” and everything is wonderful. Should a relationship fail, that just means the other person was not your soul mate, and thus one is justified in dissolving the relationship and moving on. This seems to be, quite obviously, a romantic way of depicting precisely how the feminine imperative (according to the assumptions made) operates.

Of course, it isn’t purely about genetic quality but about post-conception investment from the male. In the modern world, there are many ways this can happen; the father may stay, or if the father leaves he may be forced to provide financial support (this can happen even if the conception occurred against his wishes). And in many states, special benefits for single mothers exist (and even when these benefits are gender-neutral and equally applicable to all single parents, the fact that women tend to be favored as sole custodians in family law proceedings means these benefits disproportionately accrue to women). Free education is provided and sometimes so is free or discounted childcare.

It is the modern, liberal, post-sexual-revolution, capitalist-welfare-state that seems to allow women to mate with the men they crave, breed with the men they want to breed with, have the children of the men they want to have the children of, and get those children provided for.

Let us compare this to what fundamentalist Islam wants. A society where women do not choose their men. A society where women are barely allowed to even think of their own sexual needs and sometimes have their sexual anatomy mutilated (for the explicit purpose of reducing their sexual satisfaction). A society where women find it much harder, if not impossible, to divorce their husbands. A society where a woman whom has left a previous relationship, and is therefore not a virgin, will not be in a position to acquire a better partner than her previous one. In a Western society, any single woman can acquire material benefits from a multitude of men (even if, in certain situations, only via the tax system) most of the time, but in a fundamentalist Islamic society this becomes substantially harder and the circle of men she can draw from shrinks. Not to mention, her own personal opportunities to acquire resources through her own effort can also shrink as women are denied education and confined to the home.

How does this optimize hypergamy? How does this make for an efficient sexual marketplace if, by efficient, we mean serving the (assumed) feminine imperative? If women are economically rational hypergamy maximizers, the societal structure that the West implements is the efficient institutional framework for them. At no time in history has it been easier for a woman to pass on her genes. At no time in history has it been easier for any woman to acquire genetic material from a “Chad” and get some degree of investment into her and the resultant child.

So from an Institutional Economics/Comparative Institutional Analysis perspective, women shouldn’t want to import Jihadi Cock, unless one assumes that fundamentalist Muslim men would be kept like breeding bulls, prohibited from political participation and unable to change the structure of our society’s laws. But we live in a democracy, and the experiences we had during the W Bush administration made it clear that religionists are not politically impotent. So as such, the WCJC theory predicts women acting in an obviously self-sabotaging way. It predicts, in other words, that women would be morons.

Conclusion
The Women Crave Jihadi Cock theory is, frankly, bizarre. It doesn’t explain non-woman SJWs, nor does it explain non-SJW, anti-SJW and anti-Jihadist women. Progressive activists (the “Hidden Tribes” study’s term for SJWs) are 8% of the population, so even if all SJWs were women (which isn’t the case), only 16% of women would be acting in accordance with the WCJC theory.

More critically, however, a fundamentalist Islamic society would institutionally constrain the feminine imperative rather than enable it. The reality is that in the modern, socially-liberal mixed-market-economy West, women can pursue this imperative with institutional enablement ranging from welfare benefits and subsidized child support and education to an highly liquid sexual marketplace with technology-aided transparency (and thus low Search & Information Costs to locate a “Chad”). They face little cost to dissolve their relationships, whilst men face high costs for doing the same; the system enables ‘branch swinging’ while incentivizing male loyalty. Social norms encourage this too, by encouraging men to commit, yet glorifying women dissolving their relationships and going on globetrotting tours to “find themselves” which not-infrequently involve liaisons with attractive and exotic men (see Eat Pray Love). Whilst securing the long term commitment of an high-value male is hard, securing the genetics of one (and thus a baby of one) isn’t, and a mixture of Daddy Government and chivalrous social norms help fill the resources gap (at least from the woman’s perspective).

An Islamist society, on the other hand, would have arranged marriages to men that may not be “Chaddam,” possibly clitoridectomy, and no chance to “branch swing” when a hotter man comes along.

So why do SJWs defend Islam from any criticism and refuse to confront Islamism? If it isn’t because WCJC, why?

I think the answer is obvious. Muslims are seen as an oppressed ethnic minority in the West, as “brown,” and the Islamic world is seen as a collective victim of American foreign policy. In other words, Muslims (as an abstraction) validate the SJW view of the world, nor is it implausible to suggest that Muslims have in fact been (at times) subject to unfair and unjust treatment by Western powers and within Western societies. And this explains why SJWs refuse to criticize Islam or Islamism, without resorting to some bizarre evolutionary-psychology Rube Goldberg Machine that’s somehow meant to apply to half the human race.

Sorry, Professor Jordan Peterson; your speculations on this point are nonsensical.

by